Month: June 2018

Today the organization Republican Majority for Choice closed its doors and turned out the lights. This organization produced and promoted public policies aimed at helping women and families. It was created in a time when many Republicans recognized abortion as a personal decision that shouldn’t involve government interference. A time when many Republicans supported pro-choice positions and candidates.

I have known many pro-choice Republican women over the years. Their argument was deeply rooted in family planning and represented classically Republican arguments.

End of bi-partisan family policies?

The tragedy is this closure may mark the end of viable bi-partisan support for essential public health measures supporting women and families. This is nowhere more evident than in the recent attempts to limit women’s access to contraception.

One of the most important aspects of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was its mandated coverage of contraceptives. With no out-of-pocket costs. The National Women’s Law Center estimated that 62.4 million had coverage of birth control without out-of-pocket expenses. The ACA’s contraceptive mandate has meant that more poor and low-income women not only have access to birth control – but they have access to more effective forms of contraception.

2.8 million US women have unplanned pregnancies every year. 50-60% of those women were using birth control the month they got pregnant. While contraception helps many women avoid pregnancy, many forms have high failure rates.

Only long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) are highly effective at preventing pregnancy. And the ACA’s contraceptive mandate have made LARCs more accessible to poor and low-income women.

Republican Attacks on Contraception

Republican attacks on Planned Parenthood are not limited to objections to abortion. Defunding Planned Parenthood is a direct attack against one of the most important avenues for women’s reproductive healthcare in the country. After all, Planned Parenthood provides contraception to 80% of their patients. 78% of whom have incomes at or below 150% of the poverty level. Poor and low-income women’s access to contraceptive, STD screenings and treatment, cancer screenings and other gynecological services will be severely damaged by eliminating Planned Parenthood.

Similarly, the Trump Administration’s attempts to expand exclusions for contraceptive coverage that would “allow any organization or individual to deny employees and their families contraceptive coverage on the basis of a religious or moral objection” is a clear privileging of the religious beliefs of individuals over the healthcare needs of women and families across the country.

The case was argued on two grounds – free speech and free exercise of religion. Regarding free speech, the argument that baking a cake is a speech act did not seem to hold much traction. Neither did the majority opinion hold that a businessperson has a right to discriminate based on their religious beliefs.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

Surprisingly, perhaps, the decision was ultimately decided on very narrow grounds. The majority ruled in favor of the baker based on the judgment that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission demonstrated “hostility” to religion. The Civil Rights Commission had made the original ruling against the baker.

What Justice Kennedy is referring to here are remarks that were made by one member of the Commission who said:

Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the holocaust, whether it be – I mean, we – we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination.

So far, what this Commissioner said is simply fact. Religion has been used in exactly this way throughout history. Furthermore, religious people continue to claim “freedom of religion” to justify misogyny, violence, homophobia, and other egregious and uncivil behaviors.

Here’s where it gets tricky

However, the Commissioner went on to say:

And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to – to use their religion to hurt others.

This is what really seemed to set Justice Kennedy off. He argued in response:

To describe a man’s faith as “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use” is to disparage his religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetorical – something insubstantial and even insincere.

Based on this statement of one Commissioner, Kennedy held that the whole Colorado Civil Rights Commission failed to uphold their responsibility of “fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law – a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation.”

The opinion equivocated on a number of points and fairly invited further cases by stating:

The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.

Just what is “undue disrespect”?

It is the phrase “without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs” that gives me pause.

How are we to determine what constitutes “undue disrespect”? Is that another way of saying we need to respect these “sincere religious beliefs”? Who decides what is “undue”?

After all, we live in a country where Christians hold some horribly disrespectful beliefs.

Some of these beliefs are against the law. As in, some Christians sincerely believe that they have the right to beat their wives and some of their wives have been taught to believe they deserve it.

Some of these beliefs are used to harm women. As in, some Christians who sincerely believe that fertilized eggs are human beings are interfering with women’s access to birth control and abortion.

Some of these beliefs are simply morally abhorrent. As in, some Christians sincerely believe that the white race is morally, physically, and intellectually superior to all other races.

Freedom of speech means that we must allow people to express their beliefs, however abhorrent. It doesn’t mean we must respect those beliefs.

The same must be said for freedom of religion. While people have a right to believe whatever they wish, they do not have a right to act on those beliefs when they harm other people.

Like this:

Welcome to my blog!

Christian social ethics begins with an understanding that the call of Micah to a life of justice, love, and humbleness is also the call of following Christ in the world. If you are interested in living with integrity and faithfulness, exploring Progressive Christianity, justice, and social change - I hope you will consider following this blog and talking with me about the issues raised here.

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.